November 12, 2012

Camp FEMA Update: “We Feel Like We’re In a Concentration Camp”

Though details are scarce and media coverage has been completely restricted by officials, stories of what victims of Hurricane Sandy are experiencing at the hands of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the wake of the storm have begun to emerge.

The few available images from these so-called “tent cities” suggest that Camp FEMA isn’t all it’s cut out to be, with one resident using some choice words to describe how FEMA and the Red Cross have completely failed at their jobs.

…made an announcement that they were sending us to permanent structures up here that had just been redone, that had washing machines and hot showers and steady electric, and they sent us to tent city. We got %@$#*!

In other such tent cities the conditions are about as bad as you can describe them; on the order of third-world refugee camp, or worse:

One reason: the information blackout. Outside of the tightly guarded community on Friday, word was spreading that the Department of Human Services would aim to move residents to the racetrack clubhouse on Saturday. The news came after photos of people bundled in blankets and parkas inside the tents circulated in the media.But inside the tent city, which has room for thousands but was only sheltering a couple of hundred on Friday, no one had heard anything about a move – or about anything else. “They treat us like we’re prisoners,” says Ashley Sabol, 21, of Seaside Heights, New Jersey. “It’s bad to say, but we honestly feel like we’re in a concentration camp.“

Sabol, who is unemployed and whose rental home was washed away in the hurricane, remembers being woken up on Wednesday at the shelter she was staying in at Toms River High School. Conditions there were “actually fine,” said Sabol.

Sabol was told that she had half an hour to pack: everyone was getting shipped to hotels in Wildwood, New Jersey, where they would be able to re-acquaint themselves with showers, beds and a door.

Sabol and about 50 other people boarded a New Jersey Transit bus, which drove around, seemingly aimlessly, for hours. Worse, this week’s Nor’easter snow storm was gathering force, lashing the bus with wind and rain.

After four hours, the bus driver pulled into a dirt parking lot. The passengers were expecting a hotel with heat and maybe even a restaurant. Instead they saw a mini city of portable toilets and voluminous white tents with their flaps snapping in the wind. Inside, they got sheets, a rubbery pillow, a cot and one blanket.

There was no heat that night, and as temperatures dropped to freezing, people could start to see their breath. The gusts of wind blew snow and slush onto Sabol’s face as her cot was near the open tent flaps. She shivered. Her hands turned purple.

Access to the facilities has been restricted by armed guard. The same holds true for activities inside of the facilities, with guards posted around the clock.

The post-storm housing — a refugee camp on the grounds of the Monmouth Park racetrack – is in lockdown, with security guards at every door, including the showers.

No one is allowed to go anywhere without showing their I.D. Even to use the bathroom, “you have to show your badge,” said Amber Decamp, a 22-year-old whose rental was washed away in Seaside Heights, New Jersey.

The mini city has no cigarettes, no books, no magazines, no board games, no TVs, and no newspapers or radios. On Friday night, in front of the mess hall, which was serving fried chicken and out-of-the-box, just-add-water potatoes, a child was dancing and dancing — to nothing. “We’re starting to lose it,” said Decamp. “But we have nowhere else to go.”

In the aftermath of this disaster, as well as the Hurricane Katrina debacle, it should be clear where the government’s priorities are.

Their plan is to complete the supply of fifteen H.S. warehouses around the country in the next three months. Ms. Bylier is quoted as saying “we have worked hard the last six months to meet our local objectives.” She continued “the goals of Homeland Security are in sight.” It’s difficult to know if this is a good or bad omen. No comment was offered as to why this program has been given so much urgency at this time.

It’s nice to know we’re ready. But ready for What?

Yes, exactly. Ready for what?

This is a limited-scope disaster that the government and populace knew was coming. While tragic, the worst-case scenario here is perhaps 50,000 people who can be deemed refugees who have lost their homes and belongings. Additionally, another 250,000 required short-term assistance like food and water in the immediate aftermath.

If FEMA and DHS are incapable of dealing with an emergency that affects less than 1% of the US population simultaneously, what type of response should the American people reasonably expect in the event of a sustained wide-scale disaster?

What if the New Madrid Fault cracks and causes a high magnitude earthquake across a multi-state region?

What if a rogue dirty-bomb or nuclear attack forces the evacuation of numerous metropolitan areas all at once?

What if a Tsunami on the order of Sumatra in 2004 inundates the East or West coast?

In all of these scenarios tens of millions of Americans would essentially become refugees.

Given the abhorrent response by the organization upon which we have been told we can depend in an emergency, the after-effects would be nothing short of Apocalyptic. A die-off would start immediately after the collapse. Many would die within a month’s time due to lack of food, clean water and from the spread of disease. The rest will battle for resources as their failure to prepare will leave them with no other choice.

- The victims were promised a place with basic running water and a place to take a shower - not a five star hotel. A) Why make promises if they are false? B. Why forbid cell phone charging? That is hardly a luxury request. B) Why forbid news coverage if the camp is adequate?

2. Also on what grounds should the government provide refugees with entertainment?

- Having the ability to charge your cell phone and communicate with friends is hardly "entertainment."

3. The only possible blunder I can see is the failure to provide heating on the first night.

- You seem to be a first-class card-carrying member of the sheeple populace who does not want to see or acknowledge reality.

R:The victims were promised a place with basic running water and a place to take a shower - not a five star hotel. Why make promises if they are false?

Who said that the promise is false? They do seem to have running water and showers. Did they station guards in front of ghost showers?

R:Why forbid cell phone charging? That is hardly a luxury request.

Where does it say that charging cell phones is forbidden?

R:Why forbid news coverage if the camp is adequate?

That is an assertion from your part, provide some proof it was forbidden. How did Reuters make their reportage in that case? Why the hack forbid news coverage in the first place if everyone would have learned about the situation anyway?

R:Having the ability to charge your cell phone and communicate with friends is hardly "entertainment."

You have been raving about no cigarettes, no books, no magazines, no board games, no TVs, and no newspapers or radios. News flash for you, Rick. That is considered entertainment.

R:You seem to be a first-class card-carrying member of the sheeple populace who does not want to see or acknowledge reality.

From a first-class delusional conspiracy theorist I take that as a compliment.

- The article states: "It has taken three days for the tents to get warm."

- Sure, you take a shower in a freezing cold tent. Will you get sick? It's likely.

>Where does it say that charging cell phones is forbidden?

This was noted when the story first broke. If you had followed the link to the Daily Sheeple article, you would have read about it:

From the Asbury Park Press (pretty close to ground zero) "...officials tried to stop them from taking pictures, turned off the WiFi and said they couldn’t charge their smart phones because there wasn’t enough power."

There "wasn't enough power" - in other words, there is a priority greater that that great drainage of electricity from cell phones.

>You have been raving about no cigarettes, no books, no magazines

- No, I have not. This article was simply republished from another site (as noted at the bottom of the post). Nevertheless, having huge spotlights on your rows of cots all night long and having nothing to do would likely seem a bit like a prison camp to me as well.

- There is nothing delusional about pointing out documented facts. There is, however, something quite indicative of simple denial when people refuse to acknowledge facts and their implications.

Rick: There "wasn't enough power" - in other words, there is a priority greater that that great drainage of electricity from cell phones.This is quite possible Rick. Heating (the thing you're complaining about above) would be one of them. Charging your cell phone is indeed a "luxury" if basic amenties such as hot water and a cooked meal are vying for the available power.

So, where is your evidence that there was power enough to charge cell phones in the midst of a natural disaster?

Rick: - There is nothing delusional about pointing out documented facts. There is, however, something quite indicative of simple denial when people refuse to acknowledge facts and their implications.This is hilarious coming from the man who never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like, who values tribalism over reality, and thinks wishful thinking is a fantastic way to produce knowledge.

There is really not much hope in entertaining a meaningful dialogue with someone like Havok. But for the sake of anyone who may happen to be misled by his comments, here we go:

One Michael B has offered that a cellphone charger uses about 3 watts. It takes about 2 hours to charge the phone, so that is 6 watt-hours. We pay for electricity by the kilowatt-hour,which is 1,000 watts per hour (in the UK this is called 1 unit of electricity), so one phone uses six thousandths of a kilowatt-hour per charge.

Obviously, charging a few cell phones in turn on a generator would not be a problem in comparison to other loads on the system. The real reason is most likely the same reason "No media is allowed inside the fenced complex..."

...It's likely they were not too thrilled with all the negative reports and news coming out of the FEMA tent city.

And, as a side note, if the government does indeed have enough funds to buy billions of rounds of hollow point bullets to use against their own citizens, you would think there would also be enough funds to buy a small generator that would be sufficient to charge some citizens cell phones. One seems to be a higher priority, as the author of the post noted.

Rick: One Michael B has offered that a cellphone charger uses about 3 watts. It takes about 2 hours to charge the phone, so that is 6 watt-hours. We pay for electricity by the kilowatt-hour,which is 1,000 watts per hour (in the UK this is called 1 unit of electricity), so one phone uses six thousandths of a kilowatt-hour per charge. A quick search showed up an estimate of 25w for a 3 hour charge.

Now, multiple that by the number of people in the camps. Then factor in the administration and running costs of the generators in terms of staff time, and we're looking at something of a logistical nightmare for something that is totally non-essential.

But people just have to play angry birds, don't the Rick?

Rick: Obviously, charging a few cell phones in turn on a generator would not be a problem in comparison to other loads on the system. The real reason is most likely the same reason "No media is allowed inside the fenced complex..." As i mentioned above, and should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it for something moment, this would not be a "few" cellphones, and you would need staff to monitor, secure, maintain, etc, the charging station/generator.Wouldn't FEMA be far better concentrating on essentials?

Rick: And, as a side note, if the government does indeed have enough funds to buy billions of rounds of hollow point bullets to use against their own citizens, you would think there would also be enough funds to buy a small generator that would be sufficient to charge some citizens cell phones. One seems to be a higher priority, as the author of the post noted.More conspiracy theories for your fevered brain.You don't really care about evidence do you Rick - a good conspiracy theory shouldnt be troubled such mundane things :-)

Rick,you seem to treat the government as monolithic. "They" can afford bullets but "they" don't care about charging cellphones.

FEMA, however, is not the DHS,or whoever you're claiming wants to shoot US citizens. FEMA is the sort of agency which is always underfunded, and it is Republicans like those you support who seem to make the most efforts to cut funding to things like FEMA. The DHS, or whatever, is the sort of militaristic agency that Republicans like to increase funding to.

Don't complain about FEMA lcking funds when the idiots you support are thoae who cut its funding.

R:Sure, you take a shower in a freezing cold tent. Will you get sick? It's likely.

Changing the subject, don t you think? You first stated that there was no showers, but now you correct your statement that they were "impossible" to use. Kinda dishonest.

If one has warm clothes one would not get sick after a hot shower. The temperature is also not exactly defined here. I guess it should had been something around 40-45 degrees, not a fatal factor. And I also acknowledge the failure to heat the tents as a blunder even if a minor one.

R:There "wasn't enough power" - in other words, there is a priority greater that that great drainage of electricity from cell phones.

As Havok has noted, logistically it seemed to be difficult at the time. You can blaim FEMA for not having completely prepared the camp beforehand, but you cannot blaim FEMA for being unprepaired as a whole. If you pointed out that NOW cell phone charging is forbidden, that would be another story.

R:And, as a side note, if the government does indeed have enough funds to buy billions of rounds of hollow point bullets to use against their own citizens, you would think there would also be enough funds to buy a small generator that would be sufficient to charge some citizens cell phones

Again, most likely there was a miscaculation and FEMA failed to deliver the adequate number of generators at thirst. Did all those black hawk deliveries were just for the hack of it? It also takes some time to install the machines. A week without a cell phone is not a big deal.

R:The real reason is most likely the same reason "No media is allowed inside the fenced complex..."

You are still spouting nonsense, Rick. Explain how Reutors have managed to infiltrate the "fenced complex" in that case.

Though, it seems that it is your reading disability that is playing here. "No media is allowed inside the fenced complex, which houses operations for JCP&L’s army of workers from out of the area." Translation for the impaired: the media is allowed in the camp, but they are not allowed to bother electricians working hard at restoring normal power output.

R:Nevertheless, having huge spotlights on your rows of cots all night long and having nothing to do would likely seem a bit like a prison camp to me as well.

And what would be the alternative, Rick? Again, what do you expect from a refugee camp? And was it that hard to grab a book before leaving?

>You first stated that there was no showers, but now you correct your statement that they were "impossible" to use. Kinda dishonest.

- To claim there were no usable showers for three days is more accurate, you are correct.

>Explain how Reutors have managed to infiltrate the "fenced complex" in that case.

- Reutors basically interviewed people, perhaps after they had a step out of the FEMA tents. Nevertheless, Reutors confirmed the media blackout in their own story: "One reason: the information blackout."

The Reutors cover photo may have come from someone's cell phone who still had a little bit of charge left.

>And what would be the alternative, Rick?

- There are plenty of architects and engineers who can design more suitable temporary housing. The irony is that FEMA already has more permanent and comfortable camps set up all around the US ready for occupants. The public, however, isn't quite ready for THAT story yet, as outlined by government responses to questions. The following are some links that verify this plan:

"New Legislation Authorizes FEMA Camps In U.S."

The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 mandates the establishment of national emergency centers to be located on military installations for the purpose of to providing temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster, according to the bill. Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645

Jesse Ventura exposed a "residential center" that looked more like a prison and later documented quite the interview with a fusion center expert. Skip the intro and go to the 30 minute mark and 39 minute mark in the following video link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qx20LA4PM0

There is apparently a FEMA camp ready in South Jersey that could have been used for these victims. But because of the extremely secretive nature of these camps it's difficult to verify the purposes of these establishments to 100% accuracy.

R:Reutors confirmed the media blackout in their own story: "One reason: the information blackout."

Nope, that is your reading disability showing, Rick. Information blackout does not equal media blackout. It is the residents of the camp that are in an information blackout because of a lack of newspapers, radio and television: "But inside the tent city, which has room for thousands but was only sheltering a couple of hundred on Friday, no one had heard anything about a move - or about anything else."

Not to mention that a media ban is useless since Reutors and others already received the info. And don t you think it would have been a huge story if the media was refused access to refugee camps?

R:There are plenty of architects and engineers who can design more suitable temporary housing.

Do explain what you mena by "more suitable" and bear in mind budgetary limits. Can you imagine the cost of building residential centers across the country just to be able to move people in for a few weeks in case of an emergency?

R:The public, however, isn't quite ready for THAT story yet, as outlined by government responses to questions. The following are some links that verify this plan:

You are giving a bill as a "proof". Did it get passed into a law? Status: Died

And what kind of whacko would try to pass such a bill to make public secret camps?

R:Jesse Ventura exposed a "residential center" that looked more like a prison and Jess Vent later documented quite the interview with a fusion center expert

I did not see anything shocking about the residential center. Ventura decided on his own that it was a FEMA camp and did not bother to make a thorough investigation. It could have been a witness protection programm center, it could have been unfinished or anything of the sort. And just because of ONE building with wire with practically no guards you make a conclusion that there is a mass conspiracy to put innocent people into camps across the US. Black Swan fallacy anyone?

The confusion of the senator was understandable. National emergency centers on military installations and FEMA camps are not the same thing. Besides, it seems that several months have passed since he co-sponsored the bill (one of dozens) and it is clear that he would not remember every detail.

R:There is apparently a FEMA camp ready in South Jersey that could have been used for these victims.

It was claimed It was a school and it does look like a school with dorms. Where would you evacuate the students in that case? Why the hell would you think it is a FEMA camp in the first place? The author of the clip even acknowledged that it just MIGHT be used as a FEMA camp. You know, ANY big building can be used as a FEMA camp.

P.S. And even in the commentary section to the high school/FEMA camp we read:

waltd609

This not﻿ a new FEMA Camp. It is Cedar Creek High School in Egg Harbor City, NJ

.

smnaotrt

yeah it is definitely in operation as a﻿ HS at the moment. My soccer team had a game there this past year. Our coach punished the varsity team (since we weren't playing, the school has a young program) by running perimeters around the complex. It is a pretty big school.

As for the "FEMA concentration camp" of Ventura, it seems to be a residential area for illegal immigrants. Do you think that throwing them in prison would have been better? Or just puting them in a 5 star hotel so they can escape?

>Nope, ...Information blackout does not equal media blackout. It is the residents of the camp that are in an information blackout because of a lack of newspapers, radio and television.

Let's look at the Reuters quote in its full context, shall we?

"BLANKETS AND PARKAS

One reason: the information blackout. Outside of the tightly guarded community on Friday, word was spreading that the Department of Human Services would aim to move residents to the racetrack clubhouse on Saturday. The news came after photos of people bundled in blankets and parkas inside the tents circulated in the media.

But inside the tent city, which has room for thousands but was only sheltering a couple of hundred on Friday, no one had heard anything about a move - or about anything else. "They treat us like we're prisoners," says Ashley Sabol, 21, of Seaside Heights, New Jersey. "It's bad to say, but we honestly feel like we're in a concentration camp."

A: "The news came after photos of people bundled in blankets and parkas inside the tents circulated in the media."

This means the media itself did not take the photos, but people themselves took photos and tried to get the word out that conditions were terrible. This is the condition the original Asbury Park paper outlined.

Two sources have verified this fact, yet, for some reason, you and others continue to challenge it. Have you ever wondered why you seem to have a desperate need to deny these facts? This is what psychologists refer to as simple denial.

>Do explain what you mena by "more suitable" and bear in mind budgetary limits.

- "More suitable" could refer to a structure that logistically (heat-water-walls included) does not take three days to warm up to an acceptable temperature.

>And what kind of whacko would try to pass such a bill to make public secret camps?

- I don't know who the "whackos" are who wrote the bill and authorized its publication. But it's right there at a US government website:

The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 mandates the establishment of national emergency centers to be located on military installations for the purpose of to providing temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster, according to the bill. Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645

>I did not see anything shocking about the residential center.

- This is why a dialogue with someone in a state of denial in not very fruitful. Barbed wire facing in, complete information secrecy, yup, perfectly normal, let's all go back to sleep.

>This not﻿ a new FEMA Camp. It is Cedar Creek High School in Egg Harbor City, NJ

- When there is extreme secrecy, then there is the possibility of making a mistake on one aspect of the story, however, that does not mean the entire plan, the "big picture" of what is transpiring is not true. I try to use words with caution. That's why I wrote, "There is apparently a FEMA camp ready in South Jersey..." I would suggest reviewing the following film in its entirety to better understand the big picture of what FEMA is all about:

Camp Fema ---FEMA CAMP PROOF-- SHARE W/ ALL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87Z_h3eVSy4&feature=related

The above film helps to outline why a strict military style was more apparent in NJ post Sandy than a humanitarian tone replete with humanitarian conditions. That's because FEMA has an underlying military basis, more than a humanitarian one.

R:This means the media itself did not take the photos, but people themselves took photos and tried to get the word out that conditions were terrible.

And where is the proof that the media is banned from entering the camp? What difference does it make who took the photos? Can you even assume that the media did not think that the camp story would be interesting and did not pay attetion to it at first?

R:This is the condition the original Asbury Park paper outlined. "No media is allowed inside the fenced complex..."

Rick, are you mentally impaired? Even your conspiracy theory journal does not make such claim. Do I need to quote my own post from a few hours earlier?

"Though, it seems that it is your reading disability that is playing here. "No media is allowed inside the fenced complex, which houses operations for JCP&L’s army of workers from out of the area." Translation for the impaired: the media is allowed in the camp, but they are not allowed to bother electricians working hard at restoring normal power output."

Where does it even say in your sheep paranoia journal that the media is banned from visiting the camp?

R:Two sources have verified this fact, yet, for some reason, you and others continue to challenge it.

Because those sources did not make such claim. Reuters spoke about the residents being in an informational vacuum and the sheep journal said that the media was not allowed to bother electricians.

Not to mention that there is no advantage whatsoever to ban the media from visiting the camp. Why do it in the first place if the information would inevitably leak?

R:"More suitable" could refer to a structure that logistically (heat-water-walls included) does not take three days to warm up to an acceptable temperature

Then those FEMA camps are suitable. It was not a failure of design, it was a failure of planning.

R:But it's right there at a US government website

Rick, do you know the difference between a bill and a law? A bill would be a draft for a law. And a law would be an enforced rule. What you offered is a draft for a law that was rejected on the commitee level. And of course it is on governmental website, all the bills are published there even those that failed. Do you relly need a foreigner to explain such things? Can you yourself check the status of the bill on the site? Status: Died

DO tell what you expect from a center for illegal immigrants. And there is no secret here.

R:I would suggest reviewing the following film in its entirety to better understand the big picture of what FEMA is all about:

Listen, I watched all of Jess Ventura s documentary and I did watch the clip about the alleged FEMA camp in NJ. Both failed to provide any reasonable evidence for concentration camps. How many clip are you going to throw at me?

Knowing that you have difficulties in uderstanding the obvious, I am going to elaborate my point about Reuters.

"The news came after photos of people bundled in blankets and parkas inside the tents circulated in the media."

That just means that the media did not pay attention at first and only came when photos were send to their offices. This does NOT mean that the media were banned from FEMA camps. That only means the media was alerted by the residents and their crew were send to the site.

And one more thing. You almost got me tricked. That will teach me no to trust you even on minor details, Rick.

"The news came after photos of people bundled in blankets and parkas inside the tents circulated in the media."

The quote above DOES NOT allow to conclude who made the photo. That only says that after the media published their articles and photos the government announced that it will improve the living conditions.

Furthermore, photos are credited to certain people. In the Reuter s article the author of the article and the photographer are the SAME person. Michael Colin wrote the article about the tent city in Oceanport and also personnaly took the picture of Ashley Sabol in the camp. Here you go, Rick. Another proof of your incompetency and failure at basic reading comprehension.

One reason: the information blackout. Outside of the tightly guarded community on Friday, word was spreading that the Department of Human Services would aim to move residents to the racetrack clubhouse on Saturday. The news came after photos of people bundled in blankets and parkas inside the tents circulated in the media."

>What difference does it make who took the photos?

- If Sotelo and Renee had do travel outside the camp "to tell their story" this implies the MSM was not telling any story and had not even been in the camp. Simple logic.

>Reuters spoke about the residents being in an informational vacuum and the sheep journal said that the media was not allowed to bother electricians.

- No, they did not. This is merely your personal interpretation, which is quite off. Reuters stated there was an "information blackout", not a one-way lack of news only for people inside the camp.

If occupants inside were forced to wear ID cards, then people who were not occupants would not have ID cards and would not be allowed in. The MSM were not occupants of the camp and did not have ID cards. Please try and use a little common sense.

If Sotelo and Renee were "having to drive out through the snow and slush to tell their story." - Then there obviously had not been a possibility of telling their story to any media inside the camp.

"Photos taken by Brian Sotelo of the tent city set up at Monmouth Park in Oceanport by FEMA for victims of Sandy. Any resident who cares to comment on the conditions in the shelter is invited to contact Asbury Park Press reporter Steve Edelson at sedelson@njpressmedia.com."

FEMA was so unprepared that occupy members actually fed FEMA workers at various locations:

http://rt.com/usa/news/fema-workers-occupy-sandy-720/

FEMA had to take time off of emergency assistance for bad weather:

https://rt.com/usa/news/fema-new-closed-weather-359/

Yes, FEMA is inept at humanitarian aid for a reason, that's not their underlying main role, just as the following YouTube video outlines:

R:At this point it is becoming a waste of time to try and communicate with you because you are completely ignoring facts that have already been pointed out and their logical implications

Sure, it is like Shrodinger s cat. The reporter Michael Colin took the photo inside the FEMA camp, but at the same time he did not.

R:If Sotelo and Renee had do travel outside the camp "to tell their story" this implies the MSM was not telling any story and had not even been in the camp. Simple logic

Correction, that only implies that Bill Bowman from the paranoic sheep flock did not visit the camp, you and he make a false generalization. I suspect he did not go through the neccessary procedures and was denied access to the camp.

Though, I do admit that I made a mistake about your mad sheep bull and indeed it falsely believes the media cannot gain access to the camp. It was not a reliable source and I did not pay enough attention to it.

The reporter Michael Colin from Reutors followed the correct procedures and was admitted in the camp.

R:No, they did not. This is merely your personal interpretation, which is quite off.

Rick, you have reading comprehension problems. And the photo taken by Michael Colin in the FEMA camp is the proof.

R:If occupants inside were forced to wear ID cards, then people who were not occupants would not have ID cards and would not be allowed in.

What stops the authorities from giving ID cards to visitors?

R:First you claim the press was not denied, then you claim the press WAS denied because it would "bother electricians" - You are having a hard time making up your mind

Nope, you re just having a hard time comprehending basic english. The press was denied access to the tents occupied by the disaster prevention crew, but was allowed to visit the tents with civilians. Again, the press was denied access to a PART of the camp.

R:The next thing you will likely claim is that people didn't REALLY feel like they were in a prison, they were just imagining that feeling.

Indeed, they felt like they were in a prison. This just shows how spoiled those people are and that they have no idea what it is like in a prison.

R:As far as the Reuters photo goes, this photo was published Nov. 10, this was only after damaging photos of the camps were already leaked by occupants

And that photo does prove that your claim about a media ban is bull and that you have a reading disability. Your sheep paranoia article is only one day earlier. Giving the fact that Reuteurs is more thorough at checking its sources, the reporters should have been investigating at the same time.

R:FEMA was so unprepared that occupy members actually fed FEMA workers at various locations

So it seems. Looks like not much has changed since the Katrina hurricane. However, you have no basis to jump from incompetency to mass cospiracy puting the population into concentration camps.Can you provide any argument for you point of view that is not 1,5 hour long?

No, it was not my claim, it was the claim of two separate news stories, as I've pointed out several times already with verbatim quotes.

The Asbury Park Press journalist obviously did not believe he was allowed into the tent city based on multiple quotes. The Reuters journalist confirmed the strict media blackout was factual - but somehow was able to slip in and take a photo. Does an exception to a rule invalidate the rule? No. Does a later change in rules mean the rule never existed? No. You can try to deny what was actually written in the press, but it is quite straightforward for people who are not in a state of denial.

>Can you provide any argument for you point of view that is not 1,5 hour long?

- I'm not making any argument, the above article is simply a re-post from another website, as I've already explained. The article simply points out facts which you feel the need to deny. And I do not see any need to continue a dialogue with you because of your extreme state of denial makes it quite impossible. I've found that people who post anonymously are often nothing but trolls and time wasters.

R:The Reuters journalist confirmed the strict media blackout was factual - but somehow was able to slip in and take a photo.

Oh! So now you claim it was a covert operation from Reuters? Ostin Powers should be jealous of that organisation. I do wonder why Colin never told in his article that he infiltrated the camp...

Let us make a deal, Rick. We will repeat the Vilenkin experiment. I will e-mail to Michael Colin and if he does answer that the media was allowed in, you will acknowledge you are an idiot. Do we have a deal? I do not know what else can convince you if reason does not.

R:I'm not making any argument, the above article is simply a re-post from another website, as I've already explained.

Backpedaling? Did you not make the claim that there are plenty of concentration camps in the US? And when your arguments were shot down (a failed bill, a center for illegal immigrants and a high school) you just say that you simply "repost points from other sites" so you do not take responsibility for the faulty information. Rick, not only you are a liar, but you are also a coward that is too much afraid to admit his own mistakes.

R:I've found that people who post anonymously are often nothing but trolls and time wasters.

I have been posting for several months here, Rick. You know who I am. You also do not get that much traffic so you would not mistake me for another anon. I proved in this article that your incompetence is beyong belief. You falsely claimed that no running water was being provided, you falsely claimed a law on national emergency centers on military installations existed, you falsely claim that the media was banned from the FEMA camp even if the reporter from Reuteurs did take a photo inside the facility, you gave links to two falsely alleged FEMA camps that turned out being one a high school and the other a center for illegal immigrants... Did I forget anything? And that is just from a dozen of your posts.

Rick, you quote the following: "No media is allowed inside the fenced complex..."in support of your claim that the media were not allowed inside the camps.As Anonynous has pointed out to you more than once now, the context of that quote makes your claim ridiculous:" which houses operations for JCP&L’s army of workers from out of the area."This is not the FEMA camp. This is the operations centre and worker housing.

Hate to admit it, but Rick is right about the paranoic sheep. Read the next phrase after the quote.

"The FEMA website indicated on Monday that there had been a shelter for first responders, utility and construction workers to take a break, although the compound now contains a full-time shelter operated by the state Department of Human Services."

It seems that initially it was reserved exclusively for disaster prevention crews, but civilians were put inside later on and part of it was turned into a full-time shelter. Since the paranoic journalist from the sheep bull was denied access, he thought that all the media was denied access.

Of course, even if the correspondent from Reuteurs gained access, Rick used his "brilliant" logic to conclude that Colin must have either needlessly infiltrated the complex illegally (even if all the information could have been gathered outside the camp and for some reason Colin decided to keep his super infiltration mission a secret from his readers) or that the ban for the media must have been lifted seconds after the journalist from the paranoic sheep was denied entrance. Ostin Poweres should be jealous of Michael Colin.

Not to mention that Rick has no idea what is the difference between the terms "information blackout" and "media blackout".

Fascinating, isn it? How far will Rick go to keep grasping at his paranoia. Can t wait for his next ridiculous excuse.

1. The APP article was published November 10. It states that the tent "houses" - present tense - operations for JCP&L and Brian Sotelo, who said, "Sitting there last night you could see your breath,” said Sotelo."

2. This means there were regular citizen occupants living together with JCP&L November 9th.

3. Also in the present tense, there is a confirmation that no media is allowed: "No media is allowed inside the fenced complex, which houses operations for JCP&L’s army of workers from out of the area."

Do feel free to re-read the noted quotes as many times as it takes at the link below until it sinks in:

If no media is allowed, present tense, when the article was published on November 10th, then the fact that Reuters took a photo in the tent on November 9th should tell you something does not jibe. This is a simple observation. If you cannot accept this obvious fact, there is no point in trying to explain it to you. You are indeed a time waster.

Sigh... The fact that you persist in your delusions does make me sad. At least I am glad that you feel the need to rationalize them and not just assert them.

R:Also in the present tense, there is a confirmation that no media is allowed: "No media is allowed inside the fenced complex, which houses operations for JCP&L’s army of workers from out of the area."

I already told you that I made a mistake about the apocaliptic sheep bull and that indeed it believes that the media is banned from the complex.

However, you only presented a single source that is tied with infowars and is famous for being unreliable. Between the word of Reuters and some paranoic sheep bull I will choose Reuters.

R:If no media is allowed, present tense, when the article was published on November 10th, then the fact that Reuters took a photo in the tent on November 9th should tell you something does not jibe.

A media ban would have been a huge story and Reuters would have mentioned it. And no, an information blackout is not a synonym for a media blackout.

Colin obviously visited the tents with the residents and his photo is the proof. There was no need to infiltrate the complex and endanger oneself to get the story and if an infiltration was done it would have been described in the article. Hence, he was allowed in on legal grounds as a representative of the media.

You are right that "something does not jibe". Now which source is more reliable? An international news agency that has a long and upstanding history or a small newspaper known for pushing forward conspiracy theories without any solid evidence?